TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner on the basis of available evidence, non-joining of the petitioner in investigation cannot be a ground to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of Vinod Kumar Jain (supra). The entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the respondent department against the petitioner is the same that was before the Appellate Authority and since the Appellate Authority had considered the entire evidence and come to above conclusion, no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution against the petitioner before the trial court, petition is allowed and complaint case quashed - 460 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Naveen Malhotra, for the Petitioner. Shri Sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted Rs. 32 lacs and there is nothing on record or any investigation has been referred in the adjudication order to substantiate it being made in this regard. Further, the Adjudicating Authority had mentioned that rest of the money was invested by Shri Parmod Kumar in Dubai and his telephone number was 531228. All along in the case the department has maintained that there were two persons of the same name i.e. Shri Parmod Kumar, one in Dubai and the second the Appellant in India. If the investment was made by Shri Parmod Kumar of Dubai, then it cannot be linked to the Appellant. The department has not made Shri Parmod Kumar of Dubai a party in the case and nothing is on record to suggest that efforts were to trace and identify of Shri Parmo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India Ors. Crl. MC 212 of 2004 decided on 7th February 2008; Vikas Mohan Singhal v. Directorate of Revenue - 2009 (3) LRC 455 = 2009 (243) E.L.T. 507 (Del.) and D.K. Modi v. K.C. Jhrahim - 2007 (3) JCC 2069, the criminal complaint against the petitioner should be quashed. On the other hand, counsel for respondent argued that these judgments would not be applicable since the petitioner had not appeared before the trial court and he has been declared a proclaimed offender/absconder by the trial court. The petitioner has concealed this fact from this Court that he was declared a proclaimed offender. Regarding observations of the Appellate Tribunal about two Parmod Kumars, it is submitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
